I want to note, that back in
this post, you were very adamant that the nature of canon was more than a declaration of status.
But now, we are back to this image that if the only thing that changes is the declaration of status... then canon has been changed and you cannot use that material to understand the lore. The change isn't in the lore itself, it isn't in the ability to use the lore. The only change is the status that the authors no longer are saying "yes, this is absolutely true".
And that isn't a factor that should really be that big of a deal. Especially considering the massive number of fans who have disagreed with the authors over various events and outcomes for decades.
Then either I was unclear or you misunderstood me, but I was trying to communicate that the nature of canon is more than
just a declaration of status. I've mentioned at length that there's also things such as the externalized nature of it, the mode(s) of engagement, and the nature by which it defines things so to aid with the conceptualization of the aspects that remain undefined. None of that means that the declaration of status isn't also a part of that; it is, and it's important. It's just not all there is when we look at what constitutes "canon."
In this case, removing that particular designation of status is enough to render something non-canon, which isn't surprising: all WotC did was issue a declaration that the pre-5E material was non-canon, after all.
However, where you lose me is when you say that isn't something that "should" be a big deal. Saying "should" is an instance of pushing your beliefs on others, by telling them what you think is and is not worthwhile for them to care about. That's not really something that benefits anyone.
Yes and no.
Let's take an example straight from this thread. Two Star Wars games.
I'm snipping your examples there because you're running into the issue of modes of engagement again. I've noted (back in
this post) that that's a different mode from engaging with the nature of the lore, setting, characters, history, etc. on their own, apart from their use as aids in game-play. I should note that both are entirely legitimate on their own, and being separate ways of engagement, should probably each be discussed on their own terms. As I mentioned previously, there's nothing wrong with disregarding canon for your home game, as that's a necessary component of using them to game with; you're going to be adding and/or changing things simply by setting a game in a canon setting (even if the scope and scale are small). But that's not the same as talking about the canon nature of the lore unto itself.
You keep saying "fans can't change the canon" but what you are missing is that they can create new, related canons.
It's not that I'm "missing" that, it's that I fundamentally disagree. Fans can introduce their own changes - there's nothing wrong with that - but those changes by their very nature are not canon to the work in question. Canon isn't something determined by them due to its externality, and as such the changes they introduce aren't understood to then become part of that externalized conceptual framework. The stories they make might have their own derivative lore (again, no pejorative there), but internal consistency alone isn't enough, which is why they can still be queried for how new aspects of the canon that they're making use of impact their derivative work. Of course, they can just declare an alternate universe or something to similar effect, but that's not canon. Like with a home D&D game, it's a personalized extrapolation of something that exists beyond the individuals using it can change.
Our difference lies in that you look at all of this and say "There is one canon". I look at this and say "There is the canon of Hasbro's original stories. There is the canon of Hasbro's new stories. There is the canon for Wintermist's story. There is the canon for Friendship is Dragons" All of them have a canon. The only difference is which canon you are talking about.
I suppose that's as good a summary of our difference of opinion as any. I'm simply of the mind that imbuing derivative works as having canon - or, if you want to phrase it differently, the same "gradation" of canon - as that which they're making use of, it essentially erodes the term to the point where it's not (very) useful in discussions regarding the source material. When someone wants to differentiate between the standardized body of lore that all fans of a given work would know from their own personalized alterations to it, being able to call one "canon" - and define what makes it that way, in a manner that the personalized alteration lacks - seems to better encourage the discussion.
For me, it's important to be able to keep that definition intact, if only to help define why, for instance, My Little Pony fans care more about what the forthcoming movie will do to the canon established by the last nine seasons (plus the movie, special, web-shorts, etc.) of
Friendship is Magic than they do about any particular work on fimfiction.net. There's a reason why that is, and having the terms and definitions to discuss why that is abets the discourse in a way that saying "it's all canon, since everyone determines their personal canon" doesn't.
But by the way you keep espousing canon, then in the home game Orcus couldn't be killed... or you are saying that being canon doesn't matter for the game. And if it doesn't matter if the game is canon or not, then the lore being made non-canonical doesn't matter, the game wasn't canon anyways.
I'm not sure that a home D&D game
can be canon in anything other than setup, since no one in this thread is suggesting that trying to maintain canon in game-play means that you then can't alter anything in the course of play. Certainly I'm not suggesting that; quite the opposite, I said previously that what you do in your home game will likely necessarily alter the established canon, which is fine, because a personal game has no canon aspects to it, anymore than fanfiction does (which, to be clear, is none).
But taking a step back and looking at a "different mode of engagement" and saying that what matters is being able to read the canon and appreciate the lore.... great. You can still do that. It just isn't the current canon. It is the old canon. You can still read and appreciate the lore, and chose to use it. It just is no longer the official and current canon of the game.
Which means it isn't canon at all. As noted previously, the status declaration isn't the only thing aspect of canon, but it's an important part of it. That can be seen in how people distinguish between fanfiction (to the point that they call it "fanfiction" in the first place) and what's "official."
It is still "a canon" it just isn't "the canon" backed by the company continuing to use it. And if that is the problem, if you need it to be "the singular canon" then it is only a matter of wanting that official stamp of approval that the authors are agreeing with your position on what is true.
And I don't need the new canon to tell me that it is okay to like the old canon.
I've already mentioned that it's more than just wanting a "stamp of approval," but rather than it's the acknowledgment of the grounded nature of a developed area of imagination. That groundedness comes from how the entire thing is kept external to one's self, given form and definition beyond what you (in the general sense of "you") can change. Whatever alterations you make in terms of personal fiction, a home game, etc. don't change the nature of the canon. When the authority over that canon discards part of it, that aspect is lost; as a result, the de-canonized part no longer helps to inform you about the nature of the parts that
are canon, and so lose that useful element.
To put it another way, I don't believe that there are "multiple" canons for a particular work, nor levels nor gradations of canon (though I'm aware that others have put forward such things in the past). There's only one canon, and things either are or are not part of it.
